Can we have a meta discussion about these people and the value of them, either individually or as a whole...

Can we have a meta discussion about these people and the value of them, either individually or as a whole? Feel free to talk about any of them.

I am truly close to discarding everything related to arts, humanities, philosophy, social science, and even "public discourse" in general as either BS or trivial, unless it's a hard STEM topic that I don't understand.

I enjoy Zizek for his comedy and Varoufakis for his economic / political insight. I enjoy reading Nassim Taleb because he is a troll who makes me feel better about having no interest in stuff, even if he does engage in classics wankery. I also watch out for videos involving Marc Andreessen or Peter Thiel (business people).

Even though I am addicted to /pol/ I have lost all interest in Milo or Peter Hitchens or SJW hating. At some point I just get exhausted with culture wars or pining for le 50s. I am not a genius but I think the reason you get otherwise genius people who turn to communism / socialism is because they are exasperated with the banality of business and politics so they just want shit to get done by the government. I can empathise a bit.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_life_of_Clint_Eastwood
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

why don't you name a few real intellectuals first instead

Aren't all of these people political related? The only reason people back them is because they all say stuff that resonates with those people.

>why don't you name a few real intellectuals first instead
He did not make it. Several weeks ago it was posted on Veeky Forums with the remark: stop posting these pseudo-intellectuals on Veeky Forums.
I asked in that thread your exact same question but got no answer.

Scaruffi has a better understanding of rock music than anyone else on earth and is thus an invaluable resource.

this

>Sargon
>Thunderf00t
>Molyneux
Concentrated cringe.

Chomsky is like the opposite of a rhetorician. Take him off reeeeeeee

The only real common denominator between all these people is that you can listen to them talking on youtube

This, pseuds just get mad because he doesn't hand out good scores like its nothing. He's pretty much the only critic that uses a 10 point rating system where a 5 is actually a 5.

...

Molyneux is a great meme, has a succint and snappy catchphrase and you can shitpost him incessantly since all you ever have to say is that whatever your opponent says is not an argument.

I think Chomsky's politics are idiotic, but the man is genuinely one of the most intelligent Americans ever to have lived. Intellectual or not, people are still fallible. Anyone can endorse biased or retarded views, or make appeals to emotion.

>Even though I am addicted to /pol/ ...
Well, that says a lot about your choice of "pseudointellectuals." Basically, anyone whose opinions differ from your own narrow political views.

Might want to take a look in the mirror, OP.

Jesus, every time I see Lawrence Krauss's face I get irrationally angry. What a fucking roach.

If you unironically believe this you are a psued
>muh experimentation
>what are emotions
Only teens enjoy the type of pretentious art rock Scaruffi peddles. It's fucking pop music, and whenever pop music tries to be something more it fails and is extraordinarily pretentious. Exceptions, of course, being Beefheart and the Velvet Underground. But I can't think of anything less attractive than wanky psuedo-avant-garde krautrock Scaruffi and his psued followers love so much. There is no humanity, no fun, just meaningless noise for its own sake, watered down for plebs who can't into real modern classical. This avant-garde fetishization has to end, the avant-garde has been dead since the 60s anyways. And rock and roll has NEVER been about experimentation and will NEVER be high art. Scaruffi knows nothing and is a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>Harold Bloom
Real talk, his taste and opinions are extremely bland and traditionalist. I don't know why he's so respected.

criterion for inclusion: they're popular
if you think noam chomsky is on the same level as sam harris, you're seriously out of the loop
aside from fathering modern linguistics, he almost singlehandedly refuted skinner's behaviorism, thus revolutionizing both psychology and philosophy of mind
also, harold bloom?
are you fucking kidding?
just because you're familiar with an acadmic as a character doesn't mean you're familiar with him as an academic; whoever made this pic hasn't read any of his books, at least not well
you think yale just picked him at random?
>I don't know why he's so respected
I'm not surprised you don't know

>no Scott Adams
phew

Seconded, I don't agree with his politics but Chomsky is smart and is (usually) intellectually honest.

I suppose that one could grouse about how he works next door to the institutions and appratuses (war-making technology) that he claims to hate, but in any event he is still extremely bright and a genuine intellectual, unlike most of the rest of OP's chart. What the OP's chart seems to take as its premise is "popular media personality is necessarily a pseud by default", which admittedly applies for the majority of cases as the OP's chart itself correctly implies, yet it cannot be taken as an axiom.

>Hitch
>Chomsky
>Buckley

...

the humanities matter, it's just that the only people who matter are the idealists. it's about dreaming up the future and the possibilities. that's the purpose of the humanities.

it's why STEMtards hate it and why "pragmatists" within the humanities should be put in a gas chamber because they are both intellectually incapable of getting into STEM and creatively incapable of realizing the function of the humanities. they are polluting the waters of the humanities with their backwards traditionalist bullshit.
why do you think any remotely decent band or comedian leans to the left? the conservatives should do the boring shit like fix the plumbing of your toilet and fix your computer. let the big creative boys make the change all you dumbfuck cavemen can channel your dull energy into manual labor.

>unless it's a hard STEM topic that I don't understand.
99% of which is in actuality made up mental bullshit with no concrete reality, set theory is a judaic tacit to confuse the goyim with imaginary made up concepts

>putin
since when is Putin a rhetorician?

don't see why William F. Buckley is on there

>why do you think any remotely decent band or comedian leans to the left?
but thats wrong

Horrible writing.

No such thing as a truly creative leftist.

Putin is on there dude. It's bait.

OMG why is [guy I like] on there???? You clearly don't understand his superior intellect, ugh!

>OMG why do you like [guy I don't like]
>you clearly don't understand, he is a PSEUD! ugh! It's so difficult being patrician.

The image is spot on, by the way.

we're, by and large, a really immature group of people
had you not noticed?

...

It's hard not to. It's come to the point where I simply cannot distinguish my own irony from what I genuinely believe. I don't know if I should be happy or upset.

as voltiare said, "be careful what you do because the lie becomes the truth, billy jean is not my lover"

name me 5 decent right-leaning bands/comedians/entertainers.
i'll even help you out, zappa was decent.
not going to read that wall of shit, have some balls and say what you think you pussy.

That specialization is cancer and we should return to the age of the capital G Genius.
>5 decent right-leaning bands/comedians/entertainers.
>bands
>comedians
>entertainers
>bourgeoisie commercial """""art"""""
sickening.

ted nugent, kid rock, adam sandler, sammy hagar, larry the cable guy

have you taken your meds?
lol

Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Ben Stein, Gene Simmons

Only a degenerate would disagree.

>Clint Eastwood
only decent one and he's barely a righty.

Take Melon Man off that list or I'll hunt you down.

don't talk shit about Mel

lol

t. Paul McCartney

disagreeing with his methodology doesn't negate his understanding of the medium.

Alex Jones, Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, Slavoj Zizek, these are people who know a little of what's going on ...

He endorsed trump

how can Hitchens know what is going on when he is dead?

>barely
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_life_of_Clint_Eastwood
furthermore he's also an old motherfucker.

.>Alex Jones
No.

I'm a STEMfag and I like the humanities I only bitch about them when they get wet over Freud and Marx. when I point out that they are failed scientists they say there is no truth anyway ignoring that this privileges science that has been refuted over current science that they have no interest in.

>that this privileges science that has been refuted over current science that they have no interest in.
what?

Read this. Technically I agree but God it was fucking boring.

He's good at linguistics.

Zizek has some nice ideas. I mean, his group faith is kind of fallible at long term and sort of what creates the eventuality of nihilism, but it's kind of kawaii.

The argument that there is no objective truth should lend equal credence to every world view but the people who invoke that argument do not in fact give every world view an equal chance. They instead favor bad science.

i agree i think the western model of trying to apply the empirical objective scientific model (it's either completely right or completely wrong) to everything (especially in the humanities) is stupid, even in science itself in certain cases.